[lenaitch]

Generally the cost of the projects get split in thirds. So, take 1/3 of all transit projects in the GTA and get rid of them. Is that what you are advocating for?

No, I'm advocating that either the province pick up the other third, or at least the feds and provinces get together on some manner of 'national urban rail transportation policy framework' or something, rather than cities going cap-in-hand every time their consultants present them with a good idea. Even not counting the feds, the idea that Metrolinx owns urban transit within the city of Toronto strikes me as quite bizarre.

The Cape Breton Regional Transportation study is a case in point. They want the feds to pay for a study to come up with a plan on how the feds can pay for urban rail.

Paul is quite correct that the feds love doing this. The PM and local members get to do photo ops with a shovel or big pair of scissors and they get to claim the glory. I'm just not sure it's the best way to plan and fund things. I'm not expecting anything to change - it's more of a rant.

In general, the airports are owned by arms length government entities.

Many large airports (like the GTAA) are operated by non-for profit corporations; although the federal government is the landlord. A not-for-profit corporation is not a government entity. Others are operated by their host municipalities. The major airports in the three territories are both owned and operated by their respective governments.

 

[micheal_can]

No, I'm advocating that either the province pick up the other third, or at least the feds and provinces get together on some manner of 'national urban rail transportation policy framework' or something, rather than cities going cap-in-hand every time their consultants present them with a good idea. Even not counting the feds, the idea that Metrolinx owns urban transit within the city of Toronto strikes me as quite bizarre.

The Cape Breton Regional Transportation study is a case in point. They want the feds to pay for a study to come up with a plan on how the feds can pay for urban rail.

Paul is quite correct that the feds love doing this. The PM and local members get to do photo ops with a shovel or big pair of scissors and they get to claim the glory. I'm just not sure it's the best way to plan and fund things. I'm not expecting anything to change - it's more of a rant.

The current system we have isn't great, but it works to a certain extent. The feds get their election ready photo ops. The municipalities get their transit projects, an the provinces don't have to pay the full amount. Why would any of them want that changed? WE should move to a better system, but like most political things,if it does not benefit the politicians the chance of it happening is minimal.

Many large airports (like the GTAA) are operated by non-for profit corporations; although the federal government is the landlord. A not-for-profit corporation is not a government entity. Others are operated by their host municipalities. The major airports in the three territories are both owned and operated by their respective governments.

My mistake.
However, what would happen with air travel if different air carriers actually owned the airports? Imagine all airports Ontario east are Air Canada owned and all airports Manitoba west are owned by Westjet. Imagine how the delay would happen depending on the carrier. And imagine an airline like Porter trying to stay on schedule anywhere.That is what Via experiences.That is what any new rail operators would be experiencing.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Remind me again how much fuel tax airlines pay per litre fuel and what percentage of the total fare paid by the customer accounts for sales taxes?

Remind you? If you already know, you tell us. I’m a huge VIA fan and want them to survive and even thrive in the coming decade of Poilievre government. But VIA’s defenders had better have a better defence of the service than rhetorical dismissives like this.

 

[micheal_can]

Remind you? If you already know, you tell us. I’m a huge VIA fan and want them to survive and even thrive in the coming decade of Poilievre government. But VIA’s defenders had better have a better defence of the service than rhetorical dismissives like this.

I have said before that Via has been cut into irrelevance. Outside of the Corridor, this is the case. From the cuts to routes and frequency to the more recent testing finding all the LDF needs to be replaced ASAP The government and Via has allowed Via to become irrelevant. I talk of being able to not have to drive to Toronto if the Canadian was more frequent, but it can be said for most of the major cities across the prairies too. That ignores the fact that even the Corridor cannot stay on time. Imagine if Via had the same service guarantee that if the train is late by more than 15 minutes, your ticket is free. How much money would Via be losing? How profitable would the Corridor still be?

Why do local public transit services get used? Simple answer is because they are frequent enough and are on time enough for the riders to want to use it.

Why are airlines as successful? Simple answer is much the same. Of course, there are lots of other reason, but, the basics of being on time, and being frequent enough to be relevant is key.

I will defend Via tooth and nail I will push for Via to stay. I also hope it thrives. I also hope that the train that goes by my house comes once a day so I can use it.

Service Guarantee

We promise to do our best to be on time. See the FAQ on our Service Guarantee for more information.

www.gotransit.com

 

[Urban Sky]

Remind you? If you already know, you tell us. I’m a huge VIA fan and want them to survive and even thrive in the coming decade of Poilievre government. But VIA’s defenders had better have a better defence of the service than rhetorical dismissives like this.

My sincere apologies for my overly allergic when you suggested that aviation is less subsidised than the rail industry. Also, following a very quick research, I have to concede that (very unlike in Europe, where aviation fuel is mostly untaxed) aviation fuel taxation in North America seems to be broadly in line with the taxation of fuel consumed by road and rail vehicles:

Is Aviation Fuel Taxed? If Not, Why Not?

Depending on where in the world a jet is fueling up, the answer can vary wildly.

simpleflying.com

Nevertheless, this does not change that airport infrastructure may be substantially subsidized, as outlined by @crs1026. Also, fuel taxation levels are generally very low in North America, which naturally favours those modes which are the most polluting…

 

[Admiral Beez]

Why do local public transit services get used? Simple answer is because they are frequent enough and are on time enough for the riders to want to use it.

I wonder what VIA or intercity passenger rail outside of the Corridor would look like today had we doubled down on service and frequency in the 1980s instead of shutting much of it down by the early 1990s.

 

[micheal_can]

I wonder what VIA or intercity passenger rail outside of the Corridor would look like today had we doubled down on service and frequency in the 1980s instead of shutting much of it down by the early 1990s.

Me too.

I imagine that certain places would have corridor like services. I also imagine that the car would still not be king. By now, we might even have HSR along the Corridor and the C-E corridor.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I imagine that certain places would have corridor like services. I also imagine that the car would still not be king. By now, we might even have HSR along the Corridor and the C-E corridor.

The only way we could stop the car from being king is to take a dramatically different path in urban planning than our American neighbours. Instead of urban sprawl we'd need to have dense cities surrounded by agricultural land, with each city linked by rail, along with economic reasons for people to travel daily. I remember the first time I flew into Frankfurt, Germany and looked out the window thinking, how are there 80+ million people here, it's all farmland.

 

[crs1026]

I wonder what VIA or intercity passenger rail outside of the Corridor would look like today had we doubled down on service and frequency in the 1980s instead of shutting much of it down by the early 1990s.

I could not resist throwing some hints of data at this rhetorical question. So I went digging for an old copy of VIA's 1980 timetable. The lines it shows which have since disappeared include the following ( I may have missed or truncated one or two others)

Sydney-Halifax
Halifax-Yarmouth
Moncton - Saint John
Moncton-Edmundston
Gaspe - Matapedia
Quebec-Hervey
Sherbrooke-Montreal
Senneterre-Cochrane
Quebec-Trois Rivieres - Montreal
Montreal-Lachute-Ottawa
Montreal- Mont Laurier
Havelock - Toronto
Thunder Bay - Sioux Lookout
Montreal-Sudbury
White River-Thunder Bay - Winnipeg
Prince Albert-Saskatoon-Regina
Edmonton-Drumheller
Calgary - South Edmonton
Victoria - Courtenay
Winnipeg-Calgary-Vancouver

The data based answer to the rhetorical question would be - in how many of these cases does the railway line actually no longer exist, or exists only as the most marginal of low grade freight lines?

The answer is - in most cases it was not the passenger train that was eliminated, it was the railway altogether.

Now extrapolate how much it would have cost to maintain those lines to a degree that enabled a time competitive, passenger amenity provided service on all these lines..... recognizing that given the retrenchment in freight traffic, VIA would have had to carry almost the whole above and below the rail cost including maintenance and life cycle investment (it has been 44 years, after all). And upgrade to meet any number of safety standards that weren't in effect in 1980.

I can get as nostalgiac and misty eyed as the best of them, and I do think we cut a few lines too many....but.... it's time to bury this line of argument once and for all. There may have been some black-hatted villains undermining VIA, but a lot of these lines were dead in 1980 and nothing would have protected them.

And show me a community where the loss of these services (some were only triweekly, even then) has actually impaired their growth or vitality over 44 years, as opposed to other economic factors. To steal from the Dixie Chicks - these lines were missing persons that nobody has missed at all.

- Paul

 

[Admiral Beez]

I could not resist throwing some hints of data at this rhetorical question. So I went digging for an old copy of VIA's 1980 timetable. The lines it shows which have since disappeared include the following ( I may have missed or truncated one or two others)

Sydney-Halifax
Halifax-Yarmouth
Moncton - Saint John
Moncton-Edmundston
Gaspe - Matapedia
Quebec-Hervey
Sherbrooke-Montreal
Senneterre-Cochrane
Quebec-Trois Rivieres - Montreal
Montreal-Lachute-Ottawa
Montreal- Mont Laurier
Havelock - Toronto
Thunder Bay - Sioux Lookout
Montreal-Sudbury
White River-Thunder Bay - Winnipeg
Prince Albert-Saskatoon-Regina
Edmonton-Drumheller
Calgary - South Edmonton
Victoria - Courtenay
Winnipeg-Calgary-Vancouver

The data based answer to the rhetorical question would be - in how many of these cases does the railway line actually no longer exist, or exists only as the most marginal of low grade freight lines?

The answer is - in most cases it was not the passenger train that was eliminated, it was the railway altogether.

Now extrapolate how much it would have cost to maintain those lines to a degree that enabled a time competitive, passenger amenity provided service on all these lines..... recognizing that given the retrenchment in freight traffic, VIA would have had to carry almost the whole above and below the rail cost including maintenance and life cycle investment (it has been 44 years, after all). And upgrade to meet any number of safety standards that weren't in effect in 1980.

I can get as nostalgiac and misty eyed as the best of them, and I do think we cut a few lines too many....but.... it's time to bury this line of argument once and for all. There may have been some black-hatted villains undermining VIA, but a lot of these lines were dead in 1980 and nothing would have protected them.

And show me a community where the loss of these services (some were only triweekly, even then) has actually impaired their growth or vitality over 44 years, as opposed to other economic factors. To steal from the Dixie Chicks - these lines were missing persons that nobody has missed at all.

- Paul

Had the Havelock route been maintained and expanded to at least Peterborough I expect tons of Trent U kids would be using it today.

 

[micheal_can]

The only way we could stop the car from being king is to take a dramatically different path in urban planning than our American neighbours. Instead of urban sprawl we'd need to have dense cities surrounded by agricultural land, with each city linked by rail, along with economic reasons for people to travel daily. I remember the first time I flew into Frankfurt, Germany and looked out the window thinking, how are there 80+ million people here, it's all farmland.

What you speak of is the chicken and egg problem. The railways are just a piece to the larger puzzle of the car culture. Local transit also plays into it. For instance, Edmonton.'s LRT system should have a line to the Via station.If it did,the line might be used more. Even with airports, if a train went there then we could have better laid out areas near the airports.The problem is, everyone is only thinking in one area, but they ignore all the other areas. People talk of the last mile, but don't bother looking at that first mile too.If they did, every GTA community with a GO station would have as good of transit as what Union Station can offer.

 

[micheal_can]

I could not resist throwing some hints of data at this rhetorical question. So I went digging for an old copy of VIA's 1980 timetable. The lines it shows which have since disappeared include the following ( I may have missed or truncated one or two others)

Sydney-Halifax
Halifax-Yarmouth
Moncton - Saint John
Moncton-Edmundston
Gaspe - Matapedia
Quebec-Hervey
Sherbrooke-Montreal
Senneterre-Cochrane
Quebec-Trois Rivieres - Montreal
Montreal-Lachute-Ottawa
Montreal- Mont Laurier
Havelock - Toronto
Thunder Bay - Sioux Lookout
Montreal-Sudbury
White River-Thunder Bay - Winnipeg
Prince Albert-Saskatoon-Regina
Edmonton-Drumheller
Calgary - South Edmonton
Victoria - Courtenay
Winnipeg-Calgary-Vancouver

The data based answer to the rhetorical question would be - in how many of these cases does the railway line actually no longer exist, or exists only as the most marginal of low grade freight lines?

The answer is - in most cases it was not the passenger train that was eliminated, it was the railway altogether.

Now extrapolate how much it would have cost to maintain those lines to a degree that enabled a time competitive, passenger amenity provided service on all these lines..... recognizing that given the retrenchment in freight traffic, VIA would have had to carry almost the whole above and below the rail cost including maintenance and life cycle investment (it has been 44 years, after all). And upgrade to meet any number of safety standards that weren't in effect in 1980.

I can get as nostalgiac and misty eyed as the best of them, and I do think we cut a few lines too many....but.... it's time to bury this line of argument once and for all. There may have been some black-hatted villains undermining VIA, but a lot of these lines were dead in 1980 and nothing would have protected them.

And show me a community where the loss of these services (some were only triweekly, even then) has actually impaired their growth or vitality over 44 years, as opposed to other economic factors. To steal from the Dixie Chicks - these lines were missing persons that nobody has missed at all.

- Paul

Of your list, the following does not have track on it.
Sydney-Halifax
Halifax-Yarmouth
Thunder Bay - Sioux Lookout
Montreal-Lachute-Ottawa
Montreal-Sudbury

The following has no tracks in certain sections but could still be connected in a reasonable manner.
Quebec-Hervey
Senneterre-Cochrane

The Havelock - Toronto may be coming back if HFR gets built.

Gaspe - Matapedia is set to return in the next few years.

Victoria - Courtenay is up in the air till the FN reserves along it decide to do anything with it.

That leaves the following that all still have their original route tracks still present:
Quebec-Trois Rivieres - Montreal
Montreal- Mont Laurier
Moncton-Edmundston
Moncton - Saint John
Sherbrooke-Montreal
White River-Thunder Bay - Winnipeg
Prince Albert-Saskatoon-Regina
Edmonton-Drumheller
Calgary - South Edmonton
Winnipeg-Calgary-Vancouver

I have always advocated we start with what we can get first. That is all of the last list.That is a lot of routes that would serve most Canadians who do not live along the Corridor route.

Because we are a car culture, None of these places likely suffered. Cancel all of the LDS and those communities served by it won't suffer much. What about a different look, what areas of our country would thrive with better passenger service? I would say anything within a 4 hour drive of a major city that is also served by rail would thrive as it would allow those that telecommute that want to be car free, pr minimal car usage to move there.

 

[just east of the creek]

I'm a huge rail fan, and I believe I've taken every passenger and museum train route (including the YDHR before it closed) in the province, from the Agawa Canyon and Polar Bear Express, to the Canadian, and multiple runs on the Corridor to Quebec City. But there is not a single route where VIA makes a profit unless fares are increased. The best that can be done is to focus on the routes where the bleeding is least. I expect PM Poilievre to take an axe to VIA.

I agree and yet I hope not. To be fair to VIA, they cannot be everywhere, on every route. But where the vast majority population of Canada lives, why yes, lets see some money spent on making the service better, faster, even if only in incremental steps. And i would be confident that as the service improves, the numbers will as well. And as to signature 'tourist' trains, I can see those services played up, they have value.

 

[lenaitch]

For the car not to be king, Canada would have had to buck a world-wide trend, certainly for countries of our size and population density. No doubt the government was looking to cut costs, but, as Paul mentions, many of the routes that were cut died for lack of ridership but also the route died for lack of revenue. Perhaps if it had been part of the governments policy to not only pay for VIA to run on host property but also pay the hosts to maintain or upgrade their property to passenger standards, some of the services might - might - have remained viable. I understand they paid a bunch of money to CN to improve the corridor and it didn't go well.

Had the Havelock route been maintained and expanded to at least Peterborough I expect tons of Trent U kids would be using it today.

I don't know the demographics of Trent's study body but do you honestly think there would be enough students shuttling back and forth on a daily basis? If Peterborough would become a bedroom community for Toronto, then it seems any 'student commute' would be contra-flow. Unless there were numerous trains per day, as best as I can recall from post-secondary, it's not 9-5 so I don't know if many students would want to be stranded for hours. If it is a commuter-type service, why should a national carrier do it.

For instance, Edmonton.'s LRT system should have a line to the Via station.If it did,the line might be used more

Alberta apparently has money to burn. The province or city are quite free to extend their LRT to the VIA station to serve its few-times-per-week service. Where do you imagine the residents of Edmonton want to take the train to on a frequent basis.

Since this thread is primarily about inter-city rail, do you suggest rail be extended to airports or airports be built near rail? If you are advocating for a commuter-level service, how do you suppose that would be financially viable even if the service was daily? There are lots of small city airports that only have one or two flights per day. How is rail service, even if an existing line runs right beside the runway, even close to being realistic.

 

[micheal_can]

I agree and yet I hope not. To be fair to VIA, they cannot be everywhere, on every route. But where the vast majority population of Canada lives, why yes, lets see some money spent on making the service better, faster, even if only in incremental steps. And i would be confident that as the service improves, the numbers will as well. And as to signature 'tourist' trains, I can see those services played up, they have value.

If that is the case, a route between Calgary and Edmonton should be started up and invested in. Outside of the QC=W corridor, it is the area of Canada's highest population not served by intercity rail.